What's "Teaching to the Test"? Is It Bad? Cognitive Rigor Has the Answer

by John R. Walkup, Ph.D.

The term teaching to the test has been discussed for generations, but the term takes on a whole new importance with the rise of high-stakes testing.

But, how are we defining teaching to the test? Here is how I define it:

Test questions feature certain rigor levels. If a teacher's instructions target those same rigor levels, that's teaching to the test. 

Rigor defined

By rigor levels, I usually refer to Cognitive Rigor, the intersection of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy and Depth of Knowledge. A test question aligns to a cell on the Cognitive Rigor Matrix. Therefore, if teachers align the Cognitive Rigor of their instruction to that of the test question, I consider that teaching to the test.

 In the following, I will single out Bloom's Revised Taxonomy for brevity. Considerations of Depth of Knowledge are important as well, but would take more space to explain.

If a teacher knows that the topic of metaphors is on the test, then she would naturally consider devoting some time in her class to teaching metaphors. In of itself, that is not teaching to the test. I see nothing wrong with using an assessment as a guide for teaching those topics the state considers important. If the geometry of right triangles is found on the test in sixth grade, then those who created the standards think the geometry of right triangles is important for sixth-graders to learn. So, why not teach it?

However, if I note that the test asks students to select one of four possible interpretations of a metaphor given the context of a literary passage, and I target only analyze-level skills so that they can answer that question, then that is teaching to the test (at least as far as Bloom's Revised Taxonomy is concerned).

Yes, It's Bad

I see real harm in targeting the rigor of instruction to align to the rigor found on the assignments. Unfortunately, a lot of professional development companies aim their lesson planning strategies precisely around this approach.

Teaching students facts (recall-level) and basic comprehension (understand-level), and not problem-solving (which features a multitude of Bloom's Taxonomy levels) stunts learning development. Instead, teachers should examine the Cognitive Rigor of assessment items and align their instruction to a wide range of Cognitive Rigor that encompasses the assessment-item rigor.

Besides, if the assessment targets comprehension and I have taught students to understand, apply, and analyze, shouldn't they perform better on understand-level assessment items? Sounds like a good strategy to me.

---

Seeking training at your school or district centered on Cognitive Rigor or Depth of Knowledge?  Call me at (559) 903-4014 or email me at jwalkup@standardsco.com. 

We will discuss ways in which I can help your teachers boost student engagement and deep thinking in their classrooms. I offer workshops, follow-up classroom observation/coaching, and curriculum analysis to anywhere in the country (and even internationally).